…and this is a 
A curious perspective
Category: Religion
Posted on: April 28, 2007 6:00 AM, by PZ Myers
This interview with a Rabbi Sacks is rather hard for me to wrap my brain around. The first part is about something Sacks is very concerned about: Jewish continuity. He seems strangely concerned about Jewish young people marrying outside their group, and has run ad campaigns to convince young Jews to raise their children in their faith. It's all very weird; I know my grandmother was concerned that her grandchildren marry good Scandinavians, and I even got admonished about what ethnic groups I could date when I went off to college. I'm afraid that when my Norwegian/Swedish grandmother did that sort of thing, we just called it bigotry and ignored her.
Even now, I can't quite imagine telling my kids who they are allowed to marry, or being concerned with maintaining an ethnic bloodline. Be different and unique, I say — no one should try to be who their parents and grandparents are, but should follow their own path, and we parents and grandparents should reconcile ourselves to our progeny's independence.
There is one odd moment in the interview. I don't sympathize at all with the ethnic purity angle, but this part I actually liked:
In the question and answer session that followed Rabbi Sacks was asked how he would convince someone like scientist and atheist, Richard Dawkins of the benefits of religious identity.
Mr Sacks responded: "We need atheists to remind us things are not God's will, God does not want hunger, injustice or violence. I am quite happy Richard Dawkins stops us having too much faith. There's a lot more religion in the world than there was 25 years ago and there's a lot more violence in the world than there was 25 years ago."
I suspect that while I enthusiastically agree qualitatively with Rabbi Sacks, we might disagree on how much religion is too much — I'd say anything above zero.
Comments
Is there really more violence in the world now than 25 years ago?
Also, maybe it's the late hour here, but I don't quite understand what the Rabbi means. What does he mean by "too much faith," and why is that a bad thing for a believer? Does he mean that being a fundamentalist and denying things like evolution is bad? If so, what does that have to do with violence, hunger, and injustice? Does the rabbi mean that people of faith can't just be complacent that the way things are now is God's will and that people should fix the world? The connection to atheists there is tenuous- being an atheist is independent of being a social activist. I really don't get it.
Posted by: synapse | April 28, 2007 6:24 AM
I suppose there are many reasons why people want to see continuity, whether in bloodlines or faith or politics, but at least one of them must be insecurity. If I hold fast to some absurd religious creed, for example, and at some level I know it is absurd, then the more people I can convince to join me in the creed and agree to its "validity" the less I will feel the fool for embracing the absurdity. Many of the advocates of "tradition" may claim to be upholding centuries of unchanged continuity, but I think that is false. In most cases I have observed, the "tradition" seems to be whatever the status quo was at the time the advocate was a child, just beginning to grow into and recognize the tradition. The relativity of this absolutism always strikes me as funny.
Posted by: pablo | April 28, 2007 6:46 AM
any god that wants
aint a god
Posted by: tsig | April 28, 2007 6:47 AM
Replace the words "Jew" and "Jewish" with the word "White" and you get an idea of how ridiculous and offensive his beliefs are. Once again, religion is given a special dispensation regarding bigotry.
Posted by: hyperdeath | April 28, 2007 7:00 AM
PZ,
I find it disturbing that in order to accuse Rabbi Sacks of bigotry you had to preface your comments by bringing in your grandmother and acknowledging her own bigotry. If Sacks was an Anglo-Protestant arguing that Anglo-Protestants should marry only other Anglo-Protestant lest this particular ethic-religious group walks "into the abyss," would the inherent bigotry in such a statement be any less obvious? The rabbi is an old-fashioned bigot, plain and simple, and we should be able to state that without having to couch it in personal stories so we don't get accused of antisemitism.
On the other hand, an acknowledgment of the correlation between piety and violence by an official religious person is encouraging; and he also seems to disavow the use of the insulting term "the chosen ones." He seem more nationalistic than religious about Jewish identity -- he makes a point of not including Noam Chomsky in the pantheon of significant Jewish cultural figures because he's been critical of Israeli government policy. I'm not sure what's worse sometimes, nationalism of religion?
Posted by: Aris | April 28, 2007 7:08 AM
Generally Jews aren't concerned with whom you marry so long as the kids are brought up Jewish. My father remarried a non-Jewish woman and my grandfather wasn't entirely happy, but at least, as he put it, my father had had two "Jewish" children (doesn't matter that neither my sister nor I are religious or in any way interested in our Jewish heritage, apart from a general feeling of solidarity with other Jews).
My atheist Jewish friends have circumcised their sons and hold passover celebrations out of a general respect for tradition while completely denying any basis for the traditions.
I'm told that Judaism considers anyone who never doubts God at all to be kind of crazy. Nor does it require belief in God, only good behavior. This might explain the rabbi's last statements.
Posted by: Mark Borok | April 28, 2007 7:21 AM
Old-style Judaism is inherently bigoted, holding that a religious faith and its attendant traditions and obligations are transferred genealogically. Its practices serve to keep its in-group distinct, both culturally, socially, and genetically.
Modern flavors are much less objectionable, but they still retain many of the factors that made the old-style tribal so practices so offensive.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 7:22 AM
I think I know what the Rabbi is trying to say. People excuse selfishness and apathy by claiming that the world's injustices are god's will. Because atheists don't make that error, we can be a catalyst for change and help address those issues and shame the theists into action.
I guess it comes down to atheist keeping theists honest -- forcing them into reflection and study.
I have it! Atheists are the "Murder Board" for theists!
Posted by: xebecs | April 28, 2007 7:39 AM
I should also add that, while PZ's grandmother might have favored marriage to other scandinavians, it is a lot easier for a gentile to convert to Judaism than for someone to become Swedish.
"Old-style Judaism is inherently bigoted, holding that a religious faith and its attendant traditions and obligations are transferred genealogically."
What do you mean by "Old-style"? By law and tradition converts to Judaism are considered equal with those born Jews. Not that there isn't a genealogical component, as anyone who is born to a Jewish mother is automatically considered Jewish. Unless that person converts to a different religion. However, a Jew who renounces religion entirely and becomes an atheist is still considered a Jew, for some reason I haven't been able to fathom.
Anyway, your description applies equally to any tribe or ethnic group. Humans are tribal animals. That's not something that can be extirpated. However, it doesn't mean that a tribe is always limited to those who are born into it.
Posted by: Mark Borok | April 28, 2007 7:53 AM
Is there, for that matter, more religion in the world now than 25 years ago? I suspect the opposite.
Bingo. Think football.
Posted by: David Marjanović | April 28, 2007 8:07 AM
Dear PZ, I'm plagarising you in this video .... hope thats ok:-/??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=elEYKpo7kFk
I thought you should know.
Posted by: Brian Coughlan | April 28, 2007 8:15 AM
I wonder how successful the ad campaigns would be if Sacks included this slogan: "Endogamy. Because ethnic purity is more important than individual identity."
Posted by: Miguel Garcia-Blanco | April 28, 2007 8:32 AM
I have a couple of acquaintances, Larry and Sue. When they got married, Sue's parents quit talking to her for a couple of years because Larry's not Jewish. Then, her brother got engaged to a lovely Korean woman, and they realized that they had to cut that shit out, and learn to cope with their son and daughter's decisions.
The very idea of anyone putting their superstitions ahead of their own children absolutely disgusts me. When anyone tries to tell me that Abraham was a virtuous man because he was ready to obey the voices in his head telling him to murder his son, it simply boggles me.
-jcr
Posted by: John C. Randolph | April 28, 2007 8:35 AM
Scientologists visiting Va. Tech to help
They've got a point there.
Posted by: quork | April 28, 2007 8:42 AM
That's not plagiarizing, that's quoting -- no problem.
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 28, 2007 8:44 AM
Old-school Judaism is also very concerned with 'purity', of all kinds and types.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 8:49 AM
Mr Sacks responded: "We need atheists to remind us things are not God's will, God does not want hunger, injustice or violence. I am quite happy Richard Dawkins stops us having too much faith. There's a lot more religion in the world than there was 25 years ago and there's a lot more violence in the world than there was 25 years ago."
We need atheists to remind us that THERE IS NO GOD.
We need theists to understand that things never were God's will.
I don't want to be accommodated this way, thank you very much.
Ethnicity and tribalism are the bane of modern existence.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 28, 2007 9:03 AM
"but this part I actually liked"
It's a very important part of the article. Will you hear this at your Catholic service, megachurch, or mosque, this weekend? I doubt it.
I had a secularist Jewish upbringing. That Judaism was and is about culture, education, family, a common history.
Rabbi BRAD Hirshfield(The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership): "One can be fully, absolutely, deeply, richly, you pick the word, Jewish and it has nothing to do with belief."
So, despite scoring a 6 on the Dawkins scale and marrying outside the tribe, I can still say we had Einstien.
Posted by: Marcia | April 28, 2007 9:10 AM
"my Norwegian/Swedish grandmother"
Oh, so Norwegians and Swedes get to mix? ;)
Posted by: windy | April 28, 2007 9:15 AM
Hmmm. The good rabbi's desires are not so unfathomable. Think memes and genes. It's undoubtedly 1) a manifestation of an important element of any good complex meme, coupled with 2) a bit of the "clan" genes having their say.
Successful complex memes (such as religions) almost always have to do something to ensure their survival, and an explicit belief that "survival of the meme is important" is one way to do it.
Similarly for genes. Members of any "traditional" group (Jews or Scandinavians, or white protestants) are more likely to share similar genes, and the strength and cohesiveness of the clan that contains those genes is one way to assist their continued replication.
The utility of the "clan" concept in capturing related gene pools may be may be less useful in today's society, but the urge to do so was just too important and so deeply embedded in our behavior to be easily discarded.
Posted by: Divalent | April 28, 2007 9:19 AM
Well, there is some mild fractiousness about it -- Norwegians are rude brutes, you know, while Swedes are soft and effete -- but that degree of miscegenation is tolerated. Danes, though, are outside the pale, and Finns ... oh, man, you might as well marry a monkey as a Finn.
(Note that I do not hold those views, but was always bewildered as a young fellow at these attitudes about people who all looked the same to me. The Finns at least had those funny long polysyllabic names to distinguish them, but otherwise we were all pale white people speaking English with sing-song accents.)
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 28, 2007 9:27 AM
"No Finns or Indians allowed", eh?
But sing-song accents? I thought we Finns speak in a monotone that would make Schwarzenegger proud. Maybe the local Finns were trying to blend in.
Posted by: windy | April 28, 2007 9:37 AM
Maybe not so much sing-song, but all those Scandihoovians do funny complicated things with their vowels. Don't they know they're all supposed to be flat and nasal, like good Americans?
Posted by: PZ Myers | April 28, 2007 9:49 AM
"Well, there is some mild fractiousness about it -- "
The interesting thing about that old clan feeling is that it is very fluid. It can operate on a number of levels, and one seeks out the highest common demoninator to suit the purpose at hand.
Thus, in an outpost settlement on a remote continent, the concept of a "clan" may have to be enlarged. In northern North America, a clannish sort of person may have to use "Scandinavian", whereas a Finn in their home country probably will have more local criteria that excludes the bulk of their fellow citizens. But it's always subject to adjustment. (Throw a German army against the border, and suddenly all those petty regional differences get ignored.)
Posted by: Divalent | April 28, 2007 10:55 AM
For shame, PZ. You of all people should know that Finns are not Scandinavian. :P
Posted by: Djur | April 28, 2007 11:21 AM
This is a very personal issue for me. I was raised Orthodox jewish, and ever since I can remember my parents always used to tell us "if you only do one thing in your life, marry a Jewish girl."
When I told my mom I was an atheist, this was her biggest concern, and it still causes her immense grief. I haven't told my father I'm an atheist for the same reason. I think chalking it up to bigotry is wrong - my parents aren't bigoted in any normal sense. It has to do with culture and history, and a deep sense of "us against the world
as an extremely victimized group. Being Jewish, and being tied to a Jewish culture and ethnicity, is a very huge part of what makes my parents what they are. If I were to marry a non-Jewish person, it would be to them as though I'm abandoning a core principle of what they are, and rejecting the history and values of my family.
Now, you might want to call this bigotry, but I won't. Bigotry implies some sort of superiority or hatred, but there isn't any of that. There's no 'intolerance' from my parents. It's just as expectation to be true to my culture and my family's history, and its an expectation built into my parents' brains from when they were children.
I don't agree with them, and I probably won't marry a Jewish person, but it's not an idea to be flippantly dismissed, especially when it's your own family.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 11:28 AM
That is irrelevant - they are bigoted in a technical sense - the most important kind of sense.
Much of that victimization is self-inflicted. As is the case with various other ethnic/religious subgroups, being a victim has become a fundamental part of the identity.
I must say that DamnYankees' position in the latest circumcision thread makes much more sense once you recognize that he grew up an Orthodox Jew.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 11:49 AM
On a related note, I wanted to recommend a great book of sci-fi I was recently lent -- "Wandering Stars", a collection of Jewish sci-fi.
The first story in there is by William Tenn, is called "On Venus, Have We Got A Rabbi" and it addresses the whole "bloodline" question with, as they say, hilarious results. It's set in the latter part of the 21st century, at a time when the Jews have been exiled into space. (Something to do with a race of sentient clams who have adopted one or several Earth religions and subsequently claimed Jerusalem as their own holy land.) An intergalactic council of Jews is held on Venus - because none of the other planets wanted the trouble - and one of the contingents that shows up is a group of Rigelians - wet, pillow-shaped things with a single tentacle - who all claim to be bona fide Jews, tracing their ancestry back through a lost group of settlers who landed on Rigel IV but apparently didn't last long. One of them proudly brandishes documents proving he's the descendant of an assistant supermarket manager from Paramus, NJ. Of course, this contradicts all known facts of biology, but "who are you going to believe - the experimental facts of biology or a fellow Jew?"
Anyway, highly recommended book, the intro by Isaac Asimov alone is worth half the price of admission.
Posted by: K. Singnal Eingang | April 28, 2007 11:54 AM
"That is irrelevant - they are bigoted in a technical sense - the most important kind of sense."
What does this even mean? "Technical sense"? What sense is that, exactly.
"Much of that victimization is self-inflicted. As is the case with various other ethnic/religious subgroups, being a victim has become a fundamental part of the identity."
True or not, this is not really relevant to the emotions of my parents. They feel what they feel. To walk up to them and say "god doesn't exist, oh, and mom, your uncle being killed by Nazi's was partially self-inflicted" doesn't really help anything.
"I must say that DamnYankees' position in the latest circumcision thread makes much more sense once you recognize that he grew up an Orthodox Jew."
I said it in the other thread also. I think it lets me understand religious people a little more. I'm as much an atheist as you are, my friend, but I come from a very religious community, and I have a sense of the mindset for why people do certain things. To chalk it all up to 'believing in the sky fairy' doesn't work in a practical sense.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 11:54 AM
No, no - it explains your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that circumcision is harmful.
You may have left the fold, but your upbringing has still stunted you. Fortunate indeed is the person who can escape religion without carrying its taints with them, and rare.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 11:57 AM
"No, no - it explains your absolute refusal to even consider the possibility that circumcision is harmful."
New conversation in this thread, brother. Let's not drag ourselves back into this.
"You may have left the fold, but your upbringing has still stunted you."
Stunted is a pretty biased word. It surely stunted me in some ways, but it also exposed me to a culture and experiential framework that others haven't had. In net, I feel very happy that I was raised how I was. I was able to learn Hebrew, I can read and somewhat Aramaic, and I have been exposed to philosophy, culture, and intellectual rigor since I was a small child.
You didn't address anything about my post, by the way.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 12:00 PM
Oh yeah - there's so very much intellectual rigor in theology.
Why do you think 'rabbinic' is a derogative when applied to 'reasoning', DamnYankees? When it comes to complex rationalization, irrationality dressed up as reason, and whitewashed 'logic' that conceals the corruption within, Jewish theology is even worse than the Catholics', and that's quite an accomplishment.
You've learned the methods of delusion well, it would seem.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 12:05 PM
"Oh yeah - there's so very much intellectual rigor in theology."
There actually is a ton, especially in the legalities of Judaism. The problem with theology is that it's simply based on false premises. But even when you have a false premise, you can do some pretty nifty logic with it. It's like law school prep as early as 5th grade.
To say theology is false is 100% right. But to then say it has no internal structure which can be admired isn't. Similarly, The Iliad is false, but it has great internal structure and is to be admired in many ways.
"Why do you think 'rabbinic' is a derogative when applied to 'reasoning', DamnYankees?"
I wasn't aware it was. Sounds rather anti-Semitic to me. I've never heard "rabbinic" used derisively in this way.
"You've learned the methods of delusion well, it would seem."
This is a bad thing? I think its important to know how religion and delusion works.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 12:11 PM
But religions don't have that, either. They not only set the premises, they work backwards from the conclusion they wish to get, selectively drawing their attention to the points they wish to emphasize and away from conflicting points.
It's rhetoric and persuasion, not logic.
Like it or not, DamnYankees, you're crippled in body and mind by the way you were brought up. The body cannot be healed, and you're the only one who can heal your mind - but first you must want to do so, and the capacity to seek sanity is the first thing religions try to destroy.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 12:16 PM
"Oh yeah - there's so very much intellectual rigor in theology."
Well, there can be, depending on how well you stay within the framework you've adopted. I would say it takes a great deal of intellectual rigor to rationalize the myriad inconsistencies in the Christian idea of "original sin".
Posted by: Mark Borok | April 28, 2007 12:20 PM
The comparison to law school is telling. The legal system is a morass of arbitrary and complex rulings, precedents, and contradictory principles that it is the task of lawyers to use to reach the conclusions they wish.
As with law, theology is a system unto itself that eschews reason and clear thinking, and is usually dominated by those who best understand the exploit the irrational nature of the system.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 12:21 PM
You have it backwards, Mr. Borok. Intellectual rigor is precisely the opposite of rationalization.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 12:23 PM
"They not only set the premises, they work backwards from the conclusion they wish to get, selectively drawing their attention to the points they wish to emphasize and away from conflicting points."
1) This isn't true most of the time. The legal process of Rabbinic Judaism is very similar to the kind we use in law here in the USA. People go to their Rabbi's all the time for advice on specific laws and actions. To say there was a preset conclusion to "can you use an escalator on the Sabbath" isn't true. You may think the question is silly, but in order to answer it satisfactorily you need a legal thought process.
2) Even if true sometimes, you still need to use logic and brains to make the links. To say we know the conclusion and the premises isn't a knock. It's very similar to Darwin. He knew the conclusion (evolution) and he knew the premises (all his examples and stuff) but he didn't know how to get from one to the other. He didn't know about genetics. Took us a very long time to figure that out.
The difference isn't in logic, but in the premises we work off of. Science is true, theology isn't. But to claim nothing in theology uses logic is silly.
"It's rhetoric and persuasion, not logic."
Ever studied Talmud? I don't want to explain too much or too little, so it'd help if I know where you're coming from.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 12:26 PM
"You have it backwards, Mr. Borok. Intellectual rigor is precisely the opposite of rationalization."
You're confusing intellectual rigor with intellectual honestly. You can have one without the other.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 12:27 PM
"As with law, theology is a system unto itself that eschews reason and clear thinking, and is usually dominated by those who best understand the exploit the irrational nature of the system."
So do you find law useless and illogical? I don't understand your point here. Theology is, in many ways, constitutional law with the constitution being a 3,000 year old document thought to be god-given.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 12:30 PM
To say theology is false is 100% right. But to then say it has no internal structure which can be admired isn't. Similarly, The Iliad is false, but it has great internal structure and is to be admired in many ways.
If only everyone would treat the Bible the same way we treat the Iliad - as fiction. Ancient pulp fiction.
Posted by: CalGeorge | April 28, 2007 12:35 PM
"If only everyone would treat the Bible the same way we treat the Iliad - as fiction. Ancient pulp fiction. "
I completely agree. It's not only more true that way, but much, much more interesting. Anyone ever listen to the Bible Geek, Dr. Robert Price?
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 12:36 PM
No, you can't. A person may reason accurately on a small matter with the intent to found a fallacious argument upon that point of truth, but rigor and honesty are equivalent in reasoning.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 12:39 PM
Caledonian, you still haven't explain what you mean by "technical" bigotry, not have you addressed the immensely personal ethno-cultural aspect of religious genealogy.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 12:47 PM
I am continually amazed by the special treatment accorded religion in the US. We are a country (like most developed countries) that has strived to remove bigotry and chauvinism from our society.
Yet when it comes to religion we throw everything out the window. It's OK to be a bigot... if you are religious. It is OK to treat women as second class citizens... if you are religious. It is OK to hate homosexuals... if you are religious. It's OK to surgically mutilate your children... if you are religious. It is OK to be a small-minded, bigotted SOB, so long as you are religious.
Yes, religion is a fine thing.
OEJ
Posted by: One Eyed Jack | April 28, 2007 12:58 PM
The comparison to the Constitution is also apt; I will presume that discussion is specifically of the US Constitution, and not those of other organizations and nations.
The working premise of the US system is that the words on parchment mean nothing; only the 'interpretation' of a group of judges at the apex of a hierarchy determines the principles that the hierarchy will follow. Precedent and ideology are the prime determinants of how those judges rule. It's about politics, not the application of reason to principles.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 1:00 PM
I'm not comfortable with the substitution "White" for "Jew" in the Rabbi's argument. As I understand it, Jews are not a race. They are a people defined by a common set of cultural customs and/or religious beliefs and practices.
"White" applies to people with a given set of racial characteristics who may or may not share the same set of cultural customs and religious beliefs and practices.
Ultimately, I'm not sure how important this distinction is. The Rabbi's comments are, if not racist, then certainly ethnocentrist and no less repugnant.
Posted by: Mark | April 28, 2007 1:13 PM
Traditionally, Judaism does not distinguish between 'culture' and 'race'. Children born to Jewish women are Jewish, are supposedly subject to the religious agreements made by the Jews, and so forth.
Children sired by Jewish men are not automatically Jewish, since paternity is so uncertain. The children of Jewish women are known to have at least one Jewish parent. Thus is the purity of the tribe maintained.
More-modern interpretations have loosened and broadened the definition, but the old tribal definition is still a very powerful one. It is also inherently bigoted.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 1:25 PM
The important distinction is anyone can choose to be Jewish if they desire. A more apt comparison is if people who had PHD's would only let their children marry people with PHD's. It'd probably be a stupid and rather meaningless distinction to impose upon a spouse, but I don't think I'd call it bigoted. Race is immutable, religion isn't.
I don't think ethnocentrism is necessary repugnant, though it certainly can be. For example, I don't think I'd want my kid to marry a cannibal from New Guinea. Even that is his culture and perfectly normal for him (though admittedly rare worldwide), I'd find his actions rather repugnant from within my culture, and I don't think I'd want a cannibal for a son. Is that wrong of me? I don't think it is.
The difference between a good and a bad distinction is whether or not it's justified. Some ethnic and cultural distinctions are justified, but most aren't. The Jewish one isn't, so I'm not really defending it. But to label ethnocentrism as entirely perverse is incorrect. It's self-preservation, and can sometimes, *sometimes*, be justified.
Are you an anarchist or something? This is really extreme view of constitutional law. I know some legal scholars believe this, but it's certainly not a mainstream opinion.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 1:28 PM
"Traditionally, Judaism does not distinguish between 'culture' and 'race'."
Of course it does. It just recognizes that they overlap. But of course they are distinct, and Jews know it. Where exactly is your knowledge of Judaism coming from?
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 1:29 PM
Well, human races don't exist in the first place, not in any genetically meaningful sense. No human population has ever been reproductively isolated for any serious amount of time.
Posted by: David Marjanović | April 28, 2007 1:30 PM
Bigotry does not necessarily imply superiority or hatred, though that could be the case. The Phelps family is bigoted about homosexuality in society AND they are full of hatred.
I've been accused of being an atheist bigot, however, I started off as a child of religion via my parents and rejected that. So, your parents are clinging to some belief system, to the point of caring about who you marry. My grandparents were that way - marrying within an ethnic group - but that idea has mostly disappeared. So, it may not be irrational why they cling to this idea, but it seems that in this multicultural, global society today, that they are being obstinate. The question is WHY?
Posted by: Observer | April 28, 2007 1:39 PM
I asked my mom, and she couldn't answer. It's just been drilled into her. She's upset and doesn't even know why. It's sad.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 1:42 PM
Judaism has old roots - very old, going back to far less-enlightened times. Some of those roots aren't very pleasant.
There are still many people who believe that it's important to maintain bloodlines, and a few people who really do believe that being Jewish isn't a matter of being raised in a culture, but is passed down genealogically.
That sort of reasoning - that Jewish culture and 'Jewish' bloodlines are inherently connected - is a fundamental part of the traditional, conservative faith. Judaism is a tribal religion, and codifies principles that human tribes have used to define in- and out-groups since the beginnings of recorded history, if not before.
Fortunately, most people have begun to move beyond those very ugly and exclusory principles. Since they're codified in certain religious memes, however - memes that are very, very good at maintaining their own existence - they've tended to persist in certain sociocultural groups.
Which is why "marrying a nice Jewish boy/girl" is such a cliche.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 1:46 PM
You are her. Except that you have enough defenses that you don't become upset. You simply disregard the uncomfortable truths.
It's cultural indoctrination. You absorb positions and opinions without even realizing it, and defend those concepts as part of your social identity. After a while, you feel that you can't abandon the concepts without abandoning the identity.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 1:51 PM
It is a cliche, but it's also an illogical statement, in that being the one (nice) has nothing to do with the other (being Jewish), which is what I think you were hinting at.
Posted by: Mark | April 28, 2007 1:51 PM
This is a misrepresentation and a simplification, and I've never heard anyone espouse this idea. Never once have I have been taught that 'bloodline' is important or that genetics or heredity make any difference. It doesn't work that way, that's not the mentality, and that's not why people care. The mentality is something a little foreign to non-Jewish people, especially non-theists. Think of it as a 'spiritual DNA', which is passed down through the family, or can be acquired through conversion. This is what must be preserved, this spiritual bond to god. It makes zero difference what your real DNA is, what your race is, or what your biological ethnicity is - it's a spiritual thing.
Now, you can think it's silly. I think it's silly. But that's the belief. Don't ascribe things to people they just don't believe, it undermines the argument.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 1:52 PM
DamnYankees:
Archie Bunker serves as a good example of a bigot, btw. I would think thyat if your mother can't examine why, she is not being honest with herself on a deep enough level. My father is bigoted on several issues; he does not have rational reasons for believing what he does. They are emotional reasons that (may) have underlying tones related to cultural superiority. I used to hear it from other relatives too. The idea of keeping any ethnic or racial group "proliferating" is an interesting discussion in itself. That many people out there still think one should marry within in their tribe is disconcerting to me.
Posted by: Observer | April 28, 2007 1:55 PM
Of course not. The traditions stem from a time long before genetics or heredity were understood.
But your implication - that you've never been taught that being Jewish is not passed down genealogically - is either a lie, or you are profoundly ignorant of the faith tradition you claim to have been brought up in. See Orthodox Judaism: "Belief that God has made an exclusive, unbreakable covenant with the Children of Israel (the descendants of the Jewish patriarch, Jacob, whose other name was Israel) to be governed by the Torah
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 2:01 PM
"Children born to Jewish women are Jewish, are supposedly subject to the religious agreements made by the Jews, and so forth."
You mean like the children born to Japanese women are Japanese and supposedly subject to Japanese social customs? And the children born to Frenchwomen are French and supposedly subject to French laws? And the children born to Russian women...
Posted by: Mark Borok | April 28, 2007 2:24 PM
Hey, it's not my religiocultural belief. Get DamnYankees to defend it.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 2:37 PM
Sure. Let's get everyone to think the same, beleive the same, and destroy culture all together. Now, whose culture do we pick to all be?
I can understand both the continuity of tradition and the blending of traditions. I think that the variety fosters a wider variety of thought. Sure, a lot of that thought will be error, some will be simply awful. Others will be brilliant. Think of what we'd loose if we were truly a melting pot.
Posted by: dorid | April 28, 2007 2:55 PM
I think you have a little consistency problem there.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 3:06 PM
Caledonian, you're telling someone who was brought up in the Orthodox Jewish tradition that he's ignorant of his own faith tradition, based on a Wikipedia article? That's some chutzpah!
Posted by: AaronInSanDiego | April 28, 2007 3:25 PM
Until fairly recently, jews who left their religion did not identify themselves as jews. They felt they were the same as their non-jewish neighbors.
Then something happened that showed this behavior was -- not adaptive. So now, most jewish atheists still refer to themselves as jewish.
And jews are concerned about being exterminated because there was one fair try at doing it, and it is still not a terribly unpopular sentiment in many parts of the world.
It's not as if the disappearance of the fourteen million jews in the world would leave a vast dent in the world's population. And think of all the tenure-track positions that would be opened up!
Posted by: Hexatron | April 28, 2007 4:25 PM
Ah, that's Jonathan Sacks - he's the one who does Radio 4's 'Thought for the Day' a lot, and he's the one who opposed a bill to legalize euthanasia by arguing in an article that he was glad his terminally ill, suffering father had not had the option to exit, because his suffering gave him, Jonathan, a chance to show his father compassion. I found that argument ethically revolting, and Saacks's inability to see how revolting it was, rather shocking. The narcissism of it! 'I'm glad you have to go on suffering because it gives ME a chance to show you compassion. The possibility that you would prefer to end it is neither here nor there, this is all about ME.'
Ecch.
Posted by: Ophelia Benson | April 28, 2007 4:28 PM
Oh, it's not based just on that article. It's talking with Jewish friends... reading about the history of religion... Wikipedia... searching the Net... and all of my sources pretty much say the same thing - which is not what DamnYankees has said.
We know nothing about what traditions DamnYankees has grown up in. We don't even know that he's a he, that he's a Jew, or Orthodox specifically. What we do know is what a poster with that name has said here.
Do you have anything to say about DamnYankees' claim?
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 4:28 PM
Would it help to have a practiving Jew in the thread? I was raised Jewish, by parents who, unfortunately, have a lot of unconsidered bias and, yes, bigotry. I have to admit to taking a certain delight, as a teenager, in asking my mother, "well, if you want me to marry someone Jewish, it's okay if he's not white, right?" and watching her sputter.
The thing I always try to keep in mind is that the Torah was written by men: whether or not it's divinely inspired, a lot of people influenced it with their own prejudices and narrow minds over the centuries. There are a lot of things about my faith I'm proud of, and a lot I'm conflicted about. The key is to consider the things Judaism asks me to do, understand them as fully as I can, and choose to do them-- or not-- with open eyes and an open mind.
Fortunately, one of the things you get from a Jewish cultural upbringing is an emphasis on questioning and intellectual honesty. I've always felt encouraged to think about my faith, about the Torah, and about why I believe. Also, tikkun olam is the kind of concept you don't have to be a theist to appreciate.
Posted by: Nona | April 28, 2007 4:29 PM
Stupid internet went out...
What? What do you believe that I don't? I'm pretty sure we share pretty much the exact same empirical and epistemological truths. I just think that growing up around religion, I understand better why people believe the way they do, especially those in my community. I'm just explaining it.
I'm an atheist, dude. I don't believe in Judaism. I just think it's sort of important and interesting to know why religious people think the way they do and believe they things they do. You seem content to just dismiss it all as unworthy of understanding (from a sociological perspective) and be pissy.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 4:36 PM
I didn't say this. I said that the genealogy is not biological, it's spiritual. It's weird, i know. But that's the belief.
I this comes from persecution, especially the Nazis and the Communists so it seems very recent. Those movements killed Jews, specifically, and didn't care what you considered yourself. Many of the Jews in Germany were thoroughly and completely secularized, and were completely German. But the Nazi's didn't care, and if you had Jewish blood they would, well, you know. Same with the Russians, especially the Czarist pogroms.
Jews developed the mentality that it doesn't really matter what they consider themselves - as long as your enemy thinks you are a Jew, you have to defend yourself as one. Telling a Nazi "I'm not Jewish" didn't work, so the other option is to bind together with other Jews and defend yourself.
Thus Israel.
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 4:43 PM
I'm not sure how you'd like me to prove this to you. I can talk in Hebrew, or I can quote you some Talmudic arguments, but I don't think you'd really care.
I was a practicing Jew my entire life. I only became an atheist about 10 months ago. I only stopped keeping Kosher about 6 months ago.
I've asked my parents this as well. They genuinely don't care about race. They would have zero problem with me marrying a black person or an Asian person. They just want them to be Jewish. This desire for religious marriage isn't just a 'cover' for other bigotry, it's a sincere belief, distinct from other social ills you might ascribe to mankind. Can they overlap? Sure. But it isn't always that way.
I think this is why so many Jews are atheists. Judaism fosters intense intellectualism and great education, and the more educated you are, the more likely you are to be an atheist. It's a flaw in the system!
Posted by: DamnYankees | April 28, 2007 4:48 PM
DamnYankees, it's awesome to hear that my parents aren't typical of Jewish parents.
...In a lot of ways, actually. They're kind of crazy. But not due to Judaism! Mostly due to not thinking about why they believe the stuff they believe. Which, actually, Judaism frowns on.
And, yeah, we do produce some really smart atheists, huh? But it goes both ways-- some of the smartest and most passionate Jews I've known are converts.
Posted by: Nona | April 28, 2007 5:03 PM
From the rabbi's (and my parents' I assume) perspective: there aren't that many Jews in the world. We're vastly outnumbered by other religious/ethnic groups (yeah, it's bizarre how Judaism is sort of both). Unlike, say, Christianity, we're not evangelical - if you want to become Jewish, you have to work at it.
The point is that if Jews keep marrying non-Jews, in a few generations there simply won't be any Jewish folk anymore.
Posted by: M | April 28, 2007 5:06 PM
The idea that genealogy and Jewishness go hand-in-hand is far older than the Holocaust, far older than Russian pogroms, older than the destruction of Jerusalem.
DamnYankees, you're either a liar, or you know remarkably little about the faith you claim to have kept most of your life.
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 6:02 PM
Oh, for heaven's sake. Caledonian, self-righteousness does not look as good on you as you seem to think it does, okay?
Yes, Jewishness is inherited. Yes, there are some misguided Jews who think that converts are not 'real' Jews. They are *wrong*. According to Jewish law, there are two ways to become Jewish, and they are *equally valid under Jewish law*: birth, or conversion.
Of course, the rules on who's born Jewish have been subject to change. We used to determine Jewishness patrilineally, but during the Babylonian Captivity the rules were changed possibly because many Jewish men were marrying non-Jews and raising their children outside the faith. Since then, to be born Jewish you need to have a Jewish mother. So a woman who converts to Judaism would have Jewish children, just the same as I would, and anyone who says otherwise is being a *bad Jew*.
Posted by: Nona | April 28, 2007 6:20 PM
Any response, DamnYankees?
(I don't know about self-righteousness, but correctness looks pretty good on me.)
Posted by: Caledonian | April 28, 2007 6:27 PM